Graffiti Art: Could Long Beach Use a Banksy?
- Details
- By Greggory Moore Follow @greggory_moore
- | Tuesday, 21 February 2012 20:15
Exhibit A
8:00am | [Note: Neither the Long Beach Post nor the author openly endorses illegal activity.]
It was months before I saw Exit Through the Gift Shop that I got to thinking about street art in Long Beach.
For those of you unfamiliar with Banksy and the world of graffiti art, Exit Through the Gift Shop is a nice primer (as well a fantastically fun piece of cinema in its own right). But you don't have to know the film to grasp the concept. The term "graffiti art" is not an oxymoron; rather, it's the making true art by way of graffiti tactics. It is meant as artistic statement, not defacement. It is not to be confused with tagging.
The question of aesthetic value is entirely separate from the question of institutional legitimacy. The quality of a piece of (street) art is unrelated to its legality. The City of Long Beach could spend $20,000 on a piece of public art that may be judged inferior to a work the City would wish to eradicate because the latter work did not come by way of the proper channels.
The issue is framed nicely by a sanctioned street-art aspect of Belmont Shore: the "shadows" of parking meters that are painted right onto the sidewalk. Some are nothing more than verisimilitudinous shadows; other "shadows" are transmogrified into flora; others features silhouettes of what might be there but isn't (a bicycle, a cat).
Early in Exit Through the Gift Shop we get a glimpse of a graffiti artist engaging in just this practice -- but without the sanction. The question is obvious: If Craig Stone had surreptitiously created his Belmont Shore "shadows" one night, would we want the City to have spent money eradicating them?
The idea for this essay came not from Belmont Shore, but from another part of the city I decline to name, since the work I spotted there (Exhibit A) clearly is unsanctioned -- and yet I hope it is never painted over.
I don't know exactly what type of equipment is covered by these shells of fake rock, but undoubtedly the City has good reason to mask it. Nonetheless, these "rocks" are pretty bland. So in my eyes this quaint "cave drawing" -- which cleverly masquerades as one created by proto-Beachers hunting shark (instead of mastodon or sabre-tooth tiger, since we're on the ocean) -- turns this utilitarian bit of street cosmetics from drab to fun. Faux rock, faux cave drawing -- a perfect marriage. And a public service.
Faux rock; as installed by the City, and tagged
Personally, I want to live in a city that is artistically vibrant and glowing. How much do I care about the legality of the means by which this state of affairs is obtained? Honestly, I don't know.
I have included with this article numerous pieces of street art -- some obviously sanctioned, some not. What seems clear to me, from my subjective vantage point of taste, is that there is little to no relation between a work's legality and its aesthetic merit. This should hardly surprise us, considering that the best artists and artistic minds Long Beach has to offer are almost entirely absent from the decision-making crucible for these matters.
This is not necessarily a criticism of the City or any of its divisions. After all, typically artists do not attempt to involve themselves in the pertinent processes. That's politics, and they'd rather spend their time on art.
Perhaps it's the case that the City can find ways to better include artists in the process; I really don't know. We're just talking here, asking questions, kicking around ideas and perspectives.
I do know that when I see what Banksy and his ilk are up to, I can't help feeling: I want that here. (Witness, for example, what's going on in Melbourne.)
It's great that Long Beach has a graffiti hotline, because graffiti can be destructive not only on the face of it, but because if left untended graffiti -- the tagging sort, anyway -- often attracts more of the same, and before you know it you've got serious blight issues. Blight is bad.
But not all street art is blight. There are graffiti works by Banksy that were installed illegally and now are under glass, protected by the municipality that he originally "defaced" with them. That is an object lesson for Long Beach. We should welcome good art, regardless of how it arrived on the scene.
Graffiti art and tagging, side by side
Painted shadow by Craig Stone
I've always liked that Long Beach has quite a bit of public art on traffic light boxes, which are just ugly when left unadorned. I always notice something new on those.
~~
CPC 7.4: The words "malice" and "maliciously" import a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person, or an intent to do a *wrongful act*, established either by proof or presumption of law. (emphasis added)
In plain english, then -as a matter of duly enacted criminal law- anyone who paints or otherwise inscribes on someone else's property, or on public property, without legal permission, has committed the public offense of vandalism and should be arrested, cited and, if convicted, punished for having done so.
Love the faux cave painting with the shark and the illustration of the woman sweeping - how can anyone object to such whimsy?
Tagging, on the other hand, is a blight - Although I am against the death penalty, I could probably make an exception for gang bangers who do nothing to add to the charm of our city, only to detract from it.
Is there a way to support such random acts of charm? Can we leave cash donations at Coastal Paint to help fund these community artists? (I mention Coastal because they have a really cool mural on the side of their building.)
As for Greet, just crawl back into your cop hole and enjoy the view. Aren't there some cops that need congratulating ala Good Work LBPD - Or some door hangers you can deliver on behalf of your buddy Watkins (running for council rep from the fourth district)?
After you have, please feel free point to anything in them that indicates that I think the *only* art that is created is that which is sanctioned by the powerful and the monied?
The question here is not art, but vandalism. Greggory seems to fail to recognize the clear distinction between that art that is lawfully expressed on property not owned by the artist, and that art which is not.
If artists desire to express themselves on property not their own, I think they should acquire permission from the owner *before* they do so. If they cannot locate an owner at the time or beforehand, then they should not "express themselves" on that property until they have done so.
I find it humourous how free Greggory and some others are willing to be with property that does not belong to them. How open they are to seeing public property defaced so long as whatever is painted or otherwise applied there somehow meets their personal estimations of "aesthetic value" or what constitutes an "artistic statement."
Not necessarily on any sort of public ordinance level (I think that level of government involvement would take some of the fun.creativity out of street art) -- but in many cities, there are areas where artists know they won't be hassled for practicing their art -- certain walls, certain buildings, etc.
That way burgeoning street artists who don't have the skill/experience/clout (yet) to land a fancy city contract to paint a mural or do some of the stuff Craig Stone and others do, would have a place to hone their art.
@ Values: You are mistaken about me, but I defend your right to remain as ignorant as you feel you must.
You are the ultimate hypocrite - and thank YOU for remaining as ignorant and obstinate as you choose.
Your attempts, however, to completely deflect from the topic of this article seem as obvious as they seem unproductive. Perhaps you can get back to us when you have something constructive to offer on the actual topic at hand?
-M.
As for art, I'll go back to my original point, for some of us, art and artists are to be honored, defended, admired and patronized.
My family and I have supported, defended, and been patrons of the arts for many, many years. As I said, I am not art-averse. I am crime averse.
An artist who commits a crime in producing and/or presenting his or her art is still a criminal. Because there are many ways to produce and present one's art without defacing or damaging the property of others, I have zero patience for those artists who resort to committing crimes in the name of art.
I have even less patience for people like Greggory, who seek to defend them.
PS, these 'street artists' all started as taggers.
To BG, are you sure the public artists all started as taggers? The seventh photo down in the article (the one with landscapes inside body forms) looks like it was done by someone with considerable talent and creativity and probably some formal training. Looks far more sophisticated than something conceived by a tagger with baggy pants, a can of spray paint and a Cholo accent.
Correction : MANY street artists started as taggers.
I think Greggory is a far better wordsmith than I will ever hope to be ["verisimilitudinous" Greggory? Really? : ) ] so I certainly understand why you would prefer him over me.
I just do not, however, understand why some seem to find vandalism to be acceptable behavior, whatever form it takes and no matter how "cool" or "chic" or "hip" some seem to feel vandalism-perpetrated artwork can be.
I think it might be instructive for Greggory to call the City Public Works Graffiti Removal Office and get some specific facts about just how much vandalism of this sort costs the taxpayers and how much public and private property is defaced each year.
Tagging and guerrilla art are two very different things. Those who are prone to view issues as either black or white, cannot be expected to understand this, so it is futile to think Greet would understand the importance of free public art.
But-- the passion that has been aroused in the defense of such is truly inspiring.
Isn't that what art is all about?
I don't know what "wrongful" act means, but if the artist believes their act, while illegal, is still "right" and not "Wrongful" seems to me street art isnt vandalism at all - at least not until the owner says "that annoys me".
As to the pics here, I have to say that for the most part the legal art is much, much, much, much better than the illegal art. I dont know if that's representative of the City as a whole or public art generally, but on this page, most of the illegal stuff is useless blight, and the legal murals are really nice, authentic, with flava.
As for my prejudices showing, what do the gangs who tag in your neighborhood look like? Are they wearing nicely cut suits and using water colors or oil paints from Aaron Bros? Maybe the taggers in your area are of a different ilk than the ones I've seen.
If any "vandal" (by Greet's reckoning) wants to come to my neighborhood and paint a mural on some boring beige building, I will happily buy him or her lunch for bringing art to public spaces.
It's that they never do anything wrong.
He just calls it as he sees it.
there are gang tags around, but most tags I see in LBC are not gang tags
@artiste: An unlawful act is just that...an act or omission which violates a duly-enacted law which either forbids or commands it and to which is assigned any of several possible punishments. Some unlawful acts are "mala in se" (bad in and of themselves) and some are "mala prohibita" (or bad because they are fobidden.) I think vandalism can be considered both but in any case it is a "wrongful act" because we, as a state, have enacted criminal statutes that prohibit it.
@ Oh: An act that meets the statutory elements of vandalism is, indeed, just that...vandalism. Whether the work is the most pleasing painting in the world or the most vile gangland scrawl, if the "artist" has maliciously incribed it on property not his or her own, we, in California, consider it to be vandalism. If you and others dislike that particular law, perhaps you should make constructive efforts to see it amended or abolished. As to the physical appearance of vandals, I can assure you (based upon having personally made or participated in hundreds of arrests for vandalism over almost 30 years in law enforcement) that vandals come in all shapes, colors, sizes, ages and, both sexes. Some dress well and some poorly. Some speak better english then you or I and some speak none at all. The single consistent attribute that *all* of them shared was that they had violated one or more of our state criminal statutes prohibiting vandalism. Suppose the boring beige building in your invitation did not belong to either you or the artist? Suppose neither of you had secured prior permission from the owner before the artist went to work on his or her mural. Would that matter to you at all? If not, do you truly have so little respect for the property rights of others? Truly? By what right do you extend such an invitation and by what right does the artist accept and act upon it?
@obviously: I challenge you to quote any comment of mine in which I have ever stated that the cops never do anything wrong. I'll save you the embarrasment of failure, here, because I have never said or even implied such a nonsensical thing. Of course police officers sometimes do wrong things. Sometimes they do things that are so wrong they rise to the level of criminality. Whenever they do, they should be charged with the appropriate crime(s) and, if convicted, they should be appropriately punished.
I feel the very same way about vandals.
Yeah, you acknowledge in the abstract, hypothetical that police might make a mistake or even - heaven forfend! - act out of malice. You just never actually admit when it happens - there's always an excuse, a mitigating factor, we cant rush to judgement, they investigated themselves and found themselves innocent, we just dont understand the dangers you face, yada yada yada.
How about this: I challenge YOU to provide one instance where you acknowledge an actual error or wrongful act by a LBPO.
No one should be defending an organization, be it a police department, city government, teacher union, medical group, etc.. what people SHOULD defend, are good principles of justice and goodness. When you defend an organization over the principles, the principles get trampled on, and the organization is enabled to be corrupt.
And yes Greet, like so many "officers", seem to love this.
Perhaps they are unaware/unconscious of it? Perhaps in becoming drunk with power, they become blind to these things? Even if that IS the case, it shouldn't make it anymore acceptable.
When a former LBPD officer stole guns he was supposed to place into found property, I condemned it. When former LBPD officers have committed sexual misconduct or spouse abuse, I have condemned it. When Fullerton officers were charged with murder and manslaughter, I condemned their actions. I have not condemned the officers in Zerby because I do not believe they committed misconduct. I have not condemned the officers in Cabrera/Bustamante or Nida because those cases are still under investigation and I believe there are facts that few of us have seen all of or fully and critically considered.
Bottom line, "obviously", police officer guilt or innocence is not nearly so simple to determine as you and others seem to believe. Unlike you and some others, I am not willing to leap to conclusions (one way or the other) based upon minimal or incomplete evidence.
Further, as a former sergeant I have personally investigated hundreds and hundreds of allegations of officer misconduct. Whenever the available evidence indicated that the complaint should have been sustained, I reported that fact to my former superiors. Whenever I was asked for discipline recommendations, I provided them. Whenever I was directed to administer the re-training or discipline imposed by others, I did so to the best of my ability and in the manner dictated by established policy. You and others are free to allege whatever you like about me and my record on police officer misconduct. Until you have some direct evidence to support your entirely baseless allegations, however, all you are really doing is making noises that are full of sound and fury but, in the end, signify nothing beyond your own abject ignorance.
@ Eagle: I do not "get off on creating contention." I simply am not willing to accept at face value the sometimes ignorant and nonsensical things some people choose to say about topics that happen to interest me.
When you choose to disagree and engage with others here, are you also "getting off on contention" or are you simply choosing to engage with people with whom you disagree?
Aren't you among several here who complain the loudest when there is even the merest unsubstantiated hint that a police officer has violated a law, a policy, or a procedure?
So which is it, greetisms? Should police employees follow their policies and procedures or should they not?
You complain when police employees don't follow policy and also when they do.
Of course our councilmembers are not involved in the day to day operations of the PD or any other city department. That is not what we elect them to do. We elect them to enact local laws, to manage the public finances and properties of the elctorate, to set citywide policies, and to ensure that those policies are carried out by appointing others to do so. The appointees are accountable to the electees and the electees are responsible to us, the electors.
That's how representative government is intended to work. Whenever it doesn't, the voters ultimately have no one but themselves to blame for permitting such failures to persist.
Can you cite the specific policy or procedure of either the City or the PD that constitutes and/or authorizes what you call the "Blue Code of Silence?"
The LBPD has multiple POLICIES. Greetisms isn't saying every single policy is bad. He (or she) is saying that the culture - enabled by a policy - in the PD is to wear a cloak of silence and call it a policy. And that is bad.
I'm sure there are some LBPD policies that are mundane and inarguable, like showing up on time for the shift - Greetisms is objecting to the Blue Code of Silence Policy. Now, can that be made any clearer?
It is the belief or notion that "what we do is necessary", and is almost Malcolm X like in "by any means necessary". And while I do agree that their job can at times be difficult, and sometimes the rulebook doesn't always meet the needs of every situation, the problem is the nature of the entire establishment, in which politics, and "cya" (cover your ***) take precedence over what they are actually SUPPOSED to be there for - to protect and serve.
The cavalier arrogance exuded by cops is the best insight possible, into the nature of the corruption of this system... and while it is indeed enjoyable to be able to turn the tables in confronting Greet, HE is not the ultimate enemy, by any stretch. The enemy is a system of government which breeds corruption, and almost necessitates corruption, in order to be able to survive in it. Unless you walk into this system ready to be a complete warrior for righteousness, you don't stand much of a chance of not getting sucked in.
The reason I am a "conservative", is because I recognize this principle - that unchecked government breeds corruption and waste. It is the ONE issue that I think is the most important and crucial. If we could all recognize the nature of this insidious disease, I think we could as a society, take a big step in moving past this huge divide of "left versus right", where we can never get to the heart of any issues, because we are all divided up into these vague political ideologies.
If I could convince anyone of just one thing, it would be that bureaucracy, especially government bureaucracy, breeds corruption and waste. This is why I believe in limited government, and a capitalist system over socialism, because while human beings will always be flawed, the capitalist system is much more healthy and efficient for overall good-will.
Plural: You claim that greetisms is saying that either CLB, LBPD, or both have policies in place that "enable" a culture of what greetisms calls the Blue Code of Silence." If you agree with greetisms, could you please cite those those policies?
Eagle: I would say that anyone our society authorizes and empowers to enforce our duly-enacted laws should be considered "the good guys" right up until he or she personally proves this is not true in his or her individual case. Once that occurs I do *not* consider such a person a "good guy" any longer.
Can you cite a specific example of any comment I have made in which I have attempted to "justify a lack of honor and duty, or out and out corruption"? Thanks!
Well played!
Could that be because in doing so it relieves you of the responsibility to offer any actual proof of your allegation?
The truth is, there *is* no policy, written or not, that either establishes or encourages, what you call a blue code of silence. What there *have* been in law enforcement on occasion, are instances of former officers conspiring to commit and/or conceal crimes. Whenever that happens it is wrong and undermines the principled and ethical work of every true law enforcement professional out there.
Worse, it undermines the public's confidence in their law enforcers, which makes the mission to keep the peace and enforce the laws much harder than it already is.
For this reason, if for no other, the vast majority of cops who do not conspire, truly have no tolerance for those who do.
All most cops want to do is get through their shifts in one piece, do the best job they can under already very challenging conditions, and go home to their families and friends.
I get that you and some others don't prefer to believe that, but to tell you the truth I don't much care about that. I believe it, because I have been honored to work among the good ones and I have felt deeply betrayed and disgusted by the bad ones.
Have such conspiracies occurred? Sadly, yes. Will they probably occur again? Tragically, also yes. Whenever they do occur it is wrong and should be appropriately punished. Period.
Ok?
Basically, though, I simply ask that when a person asserts information as fact, that they be able and willing to provide evidence that their assertion is, indeed, factual. This, to my mind, is not an unreasonable expectation.
Perhaps you disagree.
Unwritten rules are defined as behavioral constraints imposed in organizations or societies that are not voiced or written down. They usually exist in unspoken and unwritten format because they form a part of the logical argument or course of action implied by tacit assumptions. Examples involving unspoken rules include unwritten and unofficial organizational hierarchies, organizational culture, and acceptable behavioral norms governing interactions between organizational members. For example, the captain of a ship is always expected to be the last to evacuate it in a disaster.
Quite a leap of faith to believe duly-appointed authority is precluded from establishing policies and procedures that include unwritten rules, like the Blue Code of Silence.
I am claiming precisely what I already stated: There *is* no policy, written or not, that either establishes or encourages, what you call a blue code of silence.
In considering this debate thus far it occurs to me that there do exist certain policies, and even laws, which apply to police officers and others, that some might misconstrue as establishing or encouraging, what you call a blue code of silence.
Police officers and some others who work with the public are sometimes constrained as a matter of law, policy, or both, from disclosing certain information to the general public. Could these types of laws and policies intended to ensure confidentiality be what you are referring to?
And, you can insist all you want, "There *is* no policy, written or not, that either establishes or encourages, what you call a blue code of silence." That is to be expected, you would be, after all, breaking the code if you were to acknowledge it's existence.
Incidentally, I'm sure I'm not the only one that is familiar with "what [I] call a [B]lue [C]ode of [S]ilence" just as I'm sure feigning ignorance of its notoreity is part of your charade.
What a pity you seem unable or unwilling to extend, to me, that same basic courtesy.
You feel quite confident of your position, and I feel no less confident of mine. It seems we'll have to try to agree to disagree.
And then you take umbrage because I posted "you sound almost childlike or at least naive" for asking that question? Apparently you don't see your own hypocrisy.
Hilarious. I suppose when you're backed into a corner your only option is to claim your feelings are hurt. Sidestepping, of course, the issue at hand.
But, that IS what you do, isn't it?
FYI, first-- I posted that you "sound almost," not that you are childlike or naive. Do you see the difference? And second, naivete or childlike innocence are not considered character flaws.
Finally, as I said, you can insist all you want there is no such thing as the Blue Code of Silence, but Google the term and you will find the equivalent of reams of articles about the subject.
Happy reading.
Just show me the section of this book that lists Code Reds
Cops are great at reading between the lines when trying to establish guilt on a suspect. When THEY are under the flashlight though, all the sudden their common sense magically disappears.
I'm just thankful that Greet is bold enough to give us a good example of it in public, for everyone to see. It is IMMENSELY helpful in increasing awareness of the inherent corruption that exists, and why it is so destructive.
I'll bet you anything that the cops that murdered Doug Zerby don't feel the LEAST bit guilty or remorseful. In THEIR world, they justify themselves and their actions, and it's "Doug's fault that he decided to play with a garden hose nozzle". Let you or me try to justify OUR actions, when the roles are reversed. You think we are going to have the system work the same way for us?!
The difference between my sincere question and your dismissive assertion of how I "seem" is readily apparent to me. Perhaps it is not so apparent for you.
I did not feel at all "backed into a corner" nor were my feelings hurt to any degree. I do not give others that sort of power over my feelings.
I think the context of your comment concerning how I "seem" was as clear as it was snide and dismissive. You seem to disagree, which is entirely your prerogative.
If we are to accept your standard of proof for the existence of what you call the Blue Code of Silence, then we must also accept that Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and Superman all exist. We can find the equivalent of reams of articles about those subjects as well, yes? As you have said, happy reading!
@Eagle: I think it is pretty illogical of you to accuse me of feigning ignorance about the existence of something that neither you, greetisms, nor anyone else has offered a single shred of objectively verifiable proof actually exists. Wherever conspiracies of silence have existed among police officers they have been wrong and, where proven they have been appropriately punished (yes, like any other crime, to be punished they must first be proven.)
I can tell you, unequivocally, that there is no rule or policy, unwritten or otherwise, that either authorizes or facilitates what greetisms has called the Blue Code of Silence. Such conspiracies to conceal crimes and/or other misconduct are, in fact, unlawful and counter to established policy.
You claim that I am somehow being false, feigning ignorance, or playing games in denying the existence of what greetisms has called the Blue Code of Silence at LBPD. The fact is that it is not my proof to offer. The accuser must offer the proof of his or her assertion, if he or she has any.
So where is greetisms proof? Where is yours?
Doesn't the fact that every time these sorts of conspiracies of silence are discovered they are punished severely and very publicly in fact *prove* that they are *not* seen as acceptable, or lawful, or compliant with the law?
I would encourage you and greetisms to try to think more critically here. That such conspiracies have existed is self evident, because they have eventually been discovered *and punished.* I never said this was not the case.
All I said and all I maintain is that grretisms is *not* correct when he states and implies that CLB and/or LBPD have a policy or policies, written or unwritten, that either *constitute or facilitate* what he calls a "Blue Code of Silence."
Ok?